Advocacy & Safety - SF Streetsblog on Door Zone Bike Lanes

This sounds about right to me:


So what is the solution? First off, bicycle design standards need to be changed to require cross hatch markings that extend 4 feet from a parked car so that even novice cyclists realize this a “no riding” area. If there is insufficient width on the street for a buffer and a bike lane, then a parking or travel lane needs to be removed. If providing for the safety and dignity of all road users is politically infeasible, then the bike lane itself needs to be removed and replaced with sharrows indicating that cyclists should take the travel lane.

It is no longer acceptable to lure people onto bicycles with a network of bicycle lanes that look inviting, but in reality can cause injury or death when used as directed. Our bicycle infrastructure design and our bicycle safety curricula should complement, not contradict, one other.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/11/08/commentary-why-are-we-building-bikes-lanes-that-are-hurting-people/

While I agree wholeheartedly with the comment... we need to realize that the reason such BL are designed in the first place is that the law says drivers must check to ensure a way is clear before opening a door into traffic.

Have you ever heard of someone being ticketed for opening a door into traffic?

This is yet another situation in which lax enforcement has lead to problems. So far motorists have carte blanche... speeding, running stop signs, running red lights, talking/texting on cell phones, right turn on red without stopping... the list just goes on and on... all found to be acceptable in one form or another by LEOs and judges.

Have you ever heard of someone being ticketed for opening a door into traffic?
Even if this was routinely done (if that is even possible) I wouldn't ride in a door zone.

Even if this was routinely done (if that is even possible) I wouldn't ride in a door zone.

Nor I, but then we aren't novice cyclists.

But the fact is that bike lanes are designed with the laws in mind... that we don't have folks (motorists and cyclists) following said laws is the problem. This also is the ironic joke behind Forester's constant rant about road rules... if in fact the rules were adhered to, vehicular cycling and bike lanes would all work quite well... but the fact is that too many folks don't know the rules, and work hard at bending rules anyway.

Even if this was routinely done (if that is even possible) I wouldn't ride in a door zone.

Oh regarding the "possibility..." well just issue a ticket any time a cyclist hits a door.

I doubt that is even done... just as rarely are "traffic" tickets handed out when a motorist violates a cyclist in a collision... all too often "an investigation" is indicated that never results in any punishment for the offender (be they cyclist or motorist).

It would appear to me that the design of most existing bike lanes pays more attention to getting cyclists as FRAP as possible, than to the safety risks they are exposed to when such designs are implemented.

But the fact is that bike lanes are designed with the laws in mind... that we don't have folks (motorists and cyclists) following said laws is the problem. I can't really disagree with your thesis, but there is very little else in road design that assumes people will follow the law. For example, roadside obstacles are commonly removed even though drivers are legally required to travel on the roadway, not down the ditch. Similarly, the county here just ruined a lot of good cycling routes by putting rumble strips everywhere. The idea that people will be able to adequately check for oncoming traffic in their mirrors is a much more radical assumption than is generally used in road design. They just don't want to get rid of parking. Parking is sacrosanct in most municipalities.


It would appear to me that the design of most existing bike lanes pays more attention to getting cyclists as FRAP as possible, than to the safety risks they are exposed to when such designs are implemented.
I agree, although in State College there have been a number of parking spaces taken out so it's not uniformly bad. My impression is that it's not necessarily done with bad intentions.

Right on Randya! To get bicyclists out of the way or to remove my right of way in relation to motorized traffic.

I say that someone getting ticketed isn't going to save me from injury in the first place.
I will add that traffic laws were enacted in the belief that policemen actually work.:rolleyes:

I can't really disagree with your thesis, but there is very little else in road design that assumes people will follow the law. For example, roadside obstacles are commonly removed even though drivers are legally required to travel on the roadway, not down the ditch. Similarly, the county here just ruined a lot of good cycling routes by putting rumble strips everywhere. The idea that people will be able to adequately check for oncoming traffic in their mirrors is a much more radical assumption than is generally used in road design. They just don't want to get rid of parking. Parking is sacrosanct in most municipalities.


I agree, although in State College there have been a number of parking spaces taken out so it's not uniformly bad. My impression is that it's not necessarily done with bad intentions.

Every darn stop light and stop sign is in place on the assumption that motorists will obey them! That they fail to do so and still manage to only kill 40,000 or so annually is the real surprise.

I know this seems "illogical" at first glance, but the reality is that if motorists and cyclists actually held to the laws, everything would work just fine... Of course the ugly reality is that this isn't the case, and everyone tries to bend the rules.

I think you have made an interesting point. However, I think it's probably more logical than the actual thought process that goes on when drawing out bike lanes in door zones. If you watch motor vehicle operator behavior near parked cars, they tend to give them a significant buffer. The issue I see is that it's relatively difficult for a person exiting a parallel parked car to properly monitor traffic in the door zone with 100% certainty. I don't think we should expect to be able to use it for vehicular travel.

It also seems to me that the same principles should apply to bike lane designs which place through cyclists to the right of right turning traffic

The door zone is unwanted space for driving. No one motors in it so no motorist feels a loss if it marked for bicycles - it is preferred it that way by faster drivers as it keeps cyclists out of the way.

The door zone is unwanted space for driving. No one motors in it so no motorist feels a loss if it marked for bicycles - it is preferred it that way by faster drivers as it keeps cyclists out of the way.

so is the gutter, hence FRAP

It would appear to me that the design of most existing bike lanes pays more attention to getting cyclists as FRAP as possible, than to the safety risks they are exposed to when such designs are implemented.

Around here (central VA), it appears to be more to show ('claim' is probably more accurate) that someone, somewhere, is thinking about cyclists. Hence, all the crappy 'bike lanes to nowhere'.

Anyone in C'ville who has ridden West Main can attest to that.

so is the gutter, hence FRAP
Is this better? (Hennepin Ave in Minneapolis, prior to the conversion to bus/bike lanes)

I think the conclusion is that it's much more convenient and faster for cyclists, but the number of accidents skyrocketed.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/hennepin%20bike%20lane.jpg

Is this better? (Hennepin Ave in Minneapolis, prior to the conversion to bus/bike lanes)

I think the conclusion is that it's much more convenient and faster for cyclists, but the number of accidents skyrocketed.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/hennepin%20bike%20lane.jpg

that's kind of a weird setup, what's the lane on the left of the cyclist (to the cyclist's right)?

I don't believe the fearmongering about the purportedly kryptonic bikelanes of death.



There is no evidence to suggest properly
designed bike lanes are more dangerous for cyclists, and there is plenty of
evidence to suggest that, in fact, bicycle lanes:
 encourage bicycle use
 improve cyclist and motorist lane discipline and predictability, and
 encourage safer riding behavior (by discouraging wrong way and sidewalk
riding).
Two primary concerns are raised in relation to bike lanes: dooring and
intersection crashes. Maintenance issues are operational issues that can be
addressed in a different forum. Neither dooring nor intersection issues are unique
to roadways with bike lanes......
Bike lanes can be striped adjacent to parking lanes and parked cars.
There are striping, signing and marking techniques that encourage and
enable cyclists to ride further away from parked cars. Bicyclists are
successfully and safely operating on urban streets even with AASHTO-
minimum recommended widths for parking, bike, and adjacent travel
lanes. This may not always be appropriate for every such street:
engineering judgment may suggest other options such as establishing
lower overall speeds and the use of shared lane arrows.


as a political high ground for a bicycle activist, pledging to demand better bikeways is a good goal, but demanding double buffered bikelanes or sharrows is going to leave some traffic coorridors with low cyclist level of service, lower and likely less safe than if AASHTO compliant bikelanes were to be placed as per the current design minimums.

Why shouldn't traffic operating significantly slower than other traffic keep FRAP? And, some posting here hold highly unrealistic expectations that faster traffic will never be passing alongside a bicyclist as the near or pass an intersection.

^^^ so basically you are arguing for door zone and right hook bike lanes as an acceptable design standard.

:eek:

:rolleyes:

IMO, that's pretty close to the end of your credibility here.

:)

as a political high ground for a bicycle activist, pledging to demand better bikeways is a good goal, but demanding double buffered bikelanes or sharrows is going to leave some traffic coorridors with low cyclist level of service, lower and likely less safe than if AASHTO compliant bikelanes were to be placed as per the current design minimums.

Why shouldn't traffic operating significantly slower than other traffic keep FRAP? And, some posting here hold highly unrealistic expectations that faster traffic will never be passing alongside a bicyclist as the near or pass an intersection.

the AASHTO standard is the problem here, along with the FRAP laws and mandatory path/lane laws

that's kind of a weird setup, what's the lane on the left of the cyclist (to the cyclist's right)?

Contraflow bus lane, I believe:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Hennepin_Avenue-Minneapolis-night-2006.jpg/800px-Hennepin_Avenue-Minneapolis-night-2006.jpg

^^^ so basically you are arguing for door zone and right hook bike lanes as an acceptable design standard.


IMO, that's pretty close to the end of your credibility here.



get a grip on yourself. the door zone exists on streets without bikelanes and there are ways to improve bikeways to mitigate the dreaded, kryptonic 'door zone' you're so worried about. I agree removing street parking alongside bikelanes is a way to mitigate the fearmongering hysterics over the 'door zone of death' randya is fretting over.

Fearmongers aside, I know, and so does the president of the League of American Bicyclists, that "There is no evidence to suggest properly designed bike lanes are more dangerous for cyclists, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that, in fact, bicycle lanes: encourage bicycle use, improve cyclist and motorist lane discipline and predictability, and encourage safer riding behavior (by discouraging wrong way and sidewalk riding). "


I think road users need to respect others right of way :)

Ah heck the LAB drinks it's own kool-aide.

Put down enough paint and the LAB gives you a medal... regardless of how well it's done.

genec, can you point to any study that shows 'door zone' bikelanes are worth the hysterics?

As far as I can read the conclusions of the researchers, streets with bikelanes are safer than streets without. Anecdotes about cyclists in door zones don't count.

from wikipedia ......


The authors of a 2009 meta-study on cycle infrastructure safety research at the University of British Columbia similarly conclude that "in comparison to cycling on bicycle-specific infrastructure (paths, lanes, routes), on-road cycling appears to be less safe."[8] In direct contrast to the claims of vehicular cycling proponents, Jennifer Dill and Theresa Carr's research on bicycle transportation in 35 U.S. cities also suggests that "higher levels of bicycle infrastructure are positively and significantly correlated with higher rates of bicycle commuting."[9]

Despite the hysterics and the fearmongering about the dreaded kryptonic door zone of death, bikelanes to AASHTO minimum are effective on several criteria.

The door zone lives and breeds on crowded city streets that have no bikelanes. In my experience in several cities, operating a bicycle in an AASHTO minimum bikelane in the crowded downtown core of a large american city is usually an express route in (relative) safety past the congestion and the traffic. Take a similarly congested street in the same city that has no bikelane, and the cyclist is weaving and darting in and out of stopped traffic past doorzones of parked and idling cars, squeezing thru the narrow spaces riding a street that presents a gratingly low level of service for the vast majority of american cyclists.

Specious expectations that cyclist traffic can be correctly destination positioned at every point a car may turn to the curb or turn right is wildly unrealistic when it comes to a discussion of how to plan for roadway bicycling. Speed differential is real.

Cyclists, of course, still need to keep their wits about them. bikelanes do not absolve bicyclists from paying attention while operating in traffic.

Bicyclist activism to increase the door buffer for bikelane standards established by the MUTCD is valid. Fearmongering about current facilities coupled to absolutes - give bicyclists bufferzones or make them share the lane - simply isn't realistic.

genec, can you point to any study that shows 'door zone' bikelanes are worth the hysterics?

As far as I can read the conclusions of the researchers, streets with bikelanes are safer than streets without.

from wikipedia ......



Despite the hysterics and the fearmongering about the dreaded kryptonic door zone of death, bikelanes to AASHTO minimum are effective on several criteria.

Sure, bicyclist activism to increase the door buffer for bikelane standards established by the MUTCD is valid. Fearmongering about current facilities coupled to absolutes - give bicyclists bufferzones or make them share the lane - simply isn't realistic.

Heck of a study Bek... their whole conclusion is that bike lanes "appear" to be safer.

OK, my study is that door zone bikelanes appear to be less safe. Ta da... my study!

really :rolleyes:

really :rolleyes:

http://bicyclesafe.com/doorprize.html

really.

And just in case you only believe wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_zone

Sorry Bek, this is where AASHTO minimums suck.

But the fact is that bike lanes are designed with the laws in mind... that we don't have folks (motorists and cyclists) following said laws is the problem. This also is the ironic joke behind Forester's constant rant about road rules... if in fact the rules were adhered to, vehicular cycling and bike lanes would all work quite well... but the fact is that too many folks don't know the rules, and work hard at bending rules anyway.

I think it's important to distinguish between practical, well thought out rules, like stopping for red lights, which are easy to follow, and road rules that are very awkward to follow and where road users will be naturally error-prone.

Rules that require drivers to maintain a very wide arc of vigilance, especially looking behind, to the sides and in front of them at the same time, are more likely to result in errors than rules that limit the required arc of vigilance. This is just a fact of our human limitations, and is why the normal rules of the road were developed to minimize such situations. Similarly, it is harder for passengers to see narrow bicyclists approaching in the blind spot than to see a wider motor vehicle approaching, where the left side of the vehicle is farther out. Passengers are also likely to forget to look carefully if they don't encounter door zone cyclists very often.

There are some common errors that no amount of enforcement and education will be able to eliminate. If the error rate is stubbornly high, like it will be for vehicle occupants opening doors, and for pedestrians stepping out past parked SUVs into the door zone before looking, then supplemental engineering or rules may be required to obtain the desired level of safety. In the case of door zones, the desired level of safety can only be achieved by cyclists staying out of the door zone.

Therefore, experienced cyclists know that they need to operate outside the door zone. Bicycle facilty engineering designs that contradict this practical knowledge are irresponsible, unethical, and amount to professional negligence.

Nice fearmongering, genec, but not very compelling.

I disagree with sggoodris' condemnation of AASHTO roadway design guidelines amounting to professional neglect.

Have you ever heard of someone being ticketed for opening a door into traffic?

How about parking too far from the curb?

How about parking too far from the curb?

Raleigh was ticketing regularly for this downtown a year ago (4587 tickets in 2009 alone). Drivers started complaining, particularly where the spaces were marked, and the cars were within the space, but farther from the curb than the ordinance allowed. Raleigh City Council then relaxed the parking rules so that the distance from the curb did not matter as long as the vehicle tires were not across the parking space line.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/02/17/342731/raleigh-scraps-12-inch-rule.html

As a result, the implicit design assumption in Raleigh must now be that the left edge of the vehicle may lawfully be directly against the right side stripe of any door zone bike lane. Yet, the are still marking new minimum width door zone bike lanes downtown.

which is currently minimum 5 feet and suggested 6 feet by AASHTO in case anyone was wondering.

which is currently minimum 5 feet and suggested 6 feet by AASHTO in case anyone was wondering.

Those specific guidelines are fine. When cities now install DZ bikelines contrary to those guidelines, with every opportunity to do otherwise, like Denver's new silliness on Champa downtown, that is professional neglect.

I think it's important to distinguish between practical, well thought out rules, like stopping for red lights, which are easy to follow, and road rules that are very awkward to follow and where road users will be naturally error-prone.

Rules that require drivers to maintain a very wide arc of vigilance, especially looking behind, to the sides and in front of them at the same time, are more likely to result in errors than rules that limit the required arc of vigilance. This is just a fact of our human limitations, and is why the normal rules of the road were developed to minimize such situations. Similarly, it is harder for passengers to see narrow bicyclists approaching in the blind spot than to see a wider motor vehicle approaching, where the left side of the vehicle is farther out. Passengers are also likely to forget to look carefully if they don't encounter door zone cyclists very often.

There are some common errors that no amount of enforcement and education will be able to eliminate. If the error rate is stubbornly high, like it will be for vehicle occupants opening doors, and for pedestrians stepping out past parked SUVs into the door zone before looking, then supplemental engineering or rules may be required to obtain the desired level of safety. In the case of door zones, the desired level of safety can only be achieved by cyclists staying out of the door zone.

Therefore, experienced cyclists know that they need to operate outside the door zone. Bicycle facility engineering designs that contradict this practical knowledge are irresponsible, unethical, and amount to professional negligence.

So in essence you and I are on the same page.


Nice fearmongering, genec, but not very compelling.

I disagree with sggoodris' condemnation of AASHTO roadway design guidelines amounting to professional neglect.

Sorry Bek, but I agree with the bottom line that Steve has presented.

While I do feel that bike lanes do encourage cyclists, I also feel that said BL should be designed in a manner that doesn't invite cyclists into known danger zones such as to the right of right turning traffic and into door zones.

I also feel that bike lanes should be wider, and signage for BL needs to be as considerate as that for motorists. If a BL is ending in 200 feet, I want a sign tell me so and I want another sign telling motorists to move over as cyclists are going to take the lane.

If all that cannot be done, then I am all for slowing down all traffic to a speed where lanes can be reasonably safely shared by all road users.

Therefore, experienced cyclists know that they need to operate outside the door zone. Bicycle facility engineering designs that contradict this practical knowledge are irresponsible, unethical, and amount to professional negligence.
The worst part is the (DZBL) teach the not yet experienced that they should ride in the door zone, thus hindering development of experienced cyclists and understanding motorists.

On a two-lane road with a raised center median, Raleigh will soon be striping 5' bike lanes between a 7' parking lane and an 11' travel lane.
The lane configuration will be:

curb | 7' parking | 5' bike | 11' travel | curb raised median curb | 11' travel | 5' bike | 7' parking | curb

This road runs through the NC State University area and is heavily used by buses and cyclists. I ride the road for fun now, before the bike lane striping, and have since I was in school, and have no problems. After striping, open car doors will extend across more than half of the bike lane. Given typical shy distance from the raised median and the width of a typical city bus, the space between an open car door and a passing bus will be less than three feet. That's not enough margin for error when a driver opens a door while a bus is passing a cyclist.

This is professional negligence.

It is disgraceful taking a four lane road (two ea. way) and adding parking, door zone bike lane and shared lane. The saddest part is many so called cycling advocates not only being OK with it, but supporting it. This is being done for the business owners getting free (or nearly) parking in front of their shops, cyclists should be fighting that, not encouraging it.

It is disgraceful taking a four lane road (two ea. way) and adding parking, door zone bike lane and shared lane. The saddest part is many so called cycling advocates not only being OK with it, but supporting it. This is being done for the business owners getting free (or nearly) parking in front of their shops, cyclists should be fighting that, not encouraging it.

Exactly!

Roads are for travel, not low cost storage of automobiles.

Put down enough paint and the LAB gives you a medal... regardless of how well it's done.
Ain't that the truth!

:lol:

which is currently minimum 5 feet and suggested 6 feet by AASHTO in case anyone was wondering.

leaving the cyclist with a maximum bike lane width of approximately 2' with a car door opened into a 6' bike lane and one foot of bike lane with a car door opened in a 5' bike lane.

That requires the cyclist to ride at the extreme left edge of the bike lane and really isn't enough room to avoid a dooring without entering the adjacent travel lane.

Your credibility is ZERO on this issue, Bek.

It is disgraceful taking a four lane road (two ea. way) and adding parking, door zone bike lane and shared lane. The saddest part is many so called cycling advocates not only being OK with it, but supporting it. This is being done for the business owners getting free (or nearly) parking in front of their shops, cyclists should be fighting that, not encouraging it.

In the case of Hillsborough street, it was previously 4 travel lanes plus parking both sides. A major streetscape overhaul project widened the sidewalks, removed a travel lane in each direction, and added the raised center median as a traffic calming/pedestrian safety measure. It was planned and designed over multiple years with many delays along the way. Raleigh planned to put sharrows in the shared travel lane.

After the new curbs were installed and repaving was underway, some students started clamoring for striped bike lanes to be added to the cross section. After staging protest rides and sitting in on city meetings, the students and other bike lane advocates convinced the city council to have public works add the door zone bike lanes to the existing width. When it was repeatedly pointed out that the striped bike lane would be in the door zone and unsafe, the bike lane proponents countered that it was okay because it would encourage cycling by novices, and experienced cyclists could ride outside the striped bike lane.

The new stripes and stencils have not been added yet, but the road diet has reduced vehicle speeds and increased the amount of pedestrian traffic crossing mid-block. In even in very light traffic on weekends, I can keep up with other vehicle traffic on most of the road, except a short uphill section, but nobody has honked at me. In busy traffic on weekdays, the cars are slower than most cyclists would be, and cyclists would be tempted to pass on the right.

This bike lane isn't a safety tool; it's purely a marketing tool to promote cycling to novices.

Seems the average motorist has more consideration for cyclists than the average self described cycling advocate.

Seems the average motorist has more consideration for cyclists than the average self described cycling advocate.

Oh I don't know about that... the average motorist simply wants you out of the way.

Separated bike lanes are the answer. Two major routes in downtown Vancouver have just been put in this year (final touches-Hornby mentioned below.. on 2nd route just about done) when i first heard about them i was indifferent. but now that i have had a chance to use them ..wow they are fantastic.
See link for picture of what they are http://www.theprovince.com/travel/Vancouver+looks+installing+bike+lane+Hornby/3334991/story.html

they are mini-two way bike lanes on one way streets separated by a barrier or curb. they have restricted right turns (for cars) as well so no more door zone and no more right hooks.

the start was when they removed (car) lanes on a major bridge into downtown and put in separated bike lanes. .. some quotes regarding that proposal.

"During the election campaign, the party had committed only to creating the city’s first-ever separated lane on the Burrard Bridge."
"Despite many predictions of traffic chaos from critics, the lane turned into a non-story."

earlier this year they put in the Dunmuir route. and there again more of the same traffic chaos cries. but
"the Dunsmuir path has had less impact on traffic than they’d anticipated."

also noted in the article is the fact that bike traffic increased from 500 to 2000 per day.

Separated bike lanes are the answer. Two major routes in downtown Vancouver have just been put in this year (final touches-Hornby mentioned below.. on 2nd route just about done) when i first heard about them i was indifferent. but now that i have had a chance to use them ..wow they are fantastic.
See link for picture of what they are http://www.theprovince.com/travel/Vancouver+looks+installing+bike+lane+Hornby/3334991/story.html

they are mini-two way bike lanes on one way streets separated by a barrier or curb. they have restricted right turns (for cars) as well so no more door zone and no more right hooks.

the start was when they removed (car) lanes on a major bridge into downtown and put in separated bike lanes. .. some quotes regarding that proposal.

"During the election campaign, the party had committed only to creating the city’s first-ever separated lane on the Burrard Bridge."
"Despite many predictions of traffic chaos from critics, the lane turned into a non-story."

earlier this year they put in the Dunmuir route. and there again more of the same traffic chaos cries. but
"the Dunsmuir path has had less impact on traffic than they’d anticipated."

also noted in the article is the fact that bike traffic increased from 500 to 2000 per day.

No no, that can't be, facilities don't increase ridership... everyone knows that. ;)

Separated bike lanes are the answer. Two major routes in downtown Vancouver have just been put in this year (final touches-Hornby mentioned below.. on 2nd route just about done) when i first heard about them i was indifferent. but now that i have had a chance to use them ..wow they are fantastic.
See link for picture of what they are http://www.theprovince.com/travel/Vancouver+looks+installing+bike+lane+Hornby/3334991/story.html

they are mini-two way bike lanes on one way streets separated by a barrier or curb. they have restricted right turns (for cars) as well so no more door zone and no more right hooks.

the start was when they removed (car) lanes on a major bridge into downtown and put in separated bike lanes. .. some quotes regarding that proposal.

"During the election campaign, the party had committed only to creating the city’s first-ever separated lane on the Burrard Bridge."

"Despite many predictions of traffic chaos from critics, the lane turned into a non-story."

earlier this year they put in the Dunmuir route. and there again more of the same traffic chaos cries. but
"the Dunsmuir path has had less impact on traffic than they’d anticipated."

also noted in the article is the fact that bike traffic increased from 500 to 2000 per day.

In what way are right turns 'restricted'?

In what way are right turns 'restricted'?

alot of the cross streets that formerly allowed a right turn now have a no right turns allowed sign

If it is not clear to everyone by now, Bek cares more about selling bicycles from the LBS he works in, over cyclist safety. There is no bike lane he will oppose because he believes they help sell bikes. A few dead cyclist from door zones, no big deal since few new potential bicycle purchasers will hear about those cases.

alot of the cross streets that formerly allowed a right turn now have a no right turns allowed sign

so far all Portland has been willing to do is to forbid right turns on red

If it is not clear to everyone by now, Bek cares more about selling bicycles from the LBS he works in, over cyclist safety. There is no bike lane he will oppose because he believes they help sell bikes. A few dead cyclist from door zones, no big deal since few new potential bicycle purchasers will hear about those cases.figured that out years ago